the Globe and Mail newspaper, citing federal sources, said he was Michael Zehef-Bibeau, a man in his early 30s who had recently been designated by the Canadian government as a "high-risk traveler" and had his passport seized.

The freakout is in full tilt.  I decided to break my house rules and watch Tweety just to see how bad it would be.   He never disappoints.

  Precisely because we have taken many preventive measures over the years fatalities in auto accidents have drastically declined. In 1941 over 28 out of 100,000 people died in auto accidents in the USA. Today the rate is just over 10 out of 100,000.

   In terms of deaths per vehicle miles traveled the rate has declined from a  11.43 per million miles in 1941 1.13-- a tenfold improvement.

1. We have a homicide. No question.

2. The homicide was committed by intentional use of a deadly weapon and the person who employed the deadly weapon understood the likely consequences of doing so.

3. There exists a  presumption that the person intended the likely consequence of his action.

4. Thus we have an intentional killing.

5. The remaining questions are state of mind and reasonableness of the actions.

6. I don't think first degree murder appears supportable unless the published reports prove to be very inaccurate.

7. From second degree to lawful self-defense, I think no potential findings have been eliminated by what we (think we)know at this time.

8. I think the critical issue is what was happening at the time and immediately   before the officer fired the fatal shot[s].

9. Even if Brown attacked him in the car and deploying the weapon at that time was totally justified, Wilson could still be guilty of some degree of homicide. Those events are probative to a degree of his subjective  fear and the objective reasonableness of it, but far from dispositve.

10. There are obviously large and significant differences in the accounts from witnesses.

11. At this time, we have no real way of evaluating the accounts   based on anything but general  biases and prejudices.

12. Based on what limited information I have, I don't see the physical evidence disclosed to date  as helping much to determine whether Wilson was justified in firing the fatal shot[s].

13. One thing that makes me think this case needs to go to a jury is precisely that the key issues seem to depend primarily on credibility determinations. A no true bill does send the message that a self-interested cop's word outweighs other testimony.

14. That feeling is buttressed by the observation  that it is not typical behavior for a wounded and unarmed man to attempt to rush a person who is shooting at him. That is especially true if there is a distance to traverse which would allow time for multiple more shots. That's not saying it could not have happened that way, but it would definitely way heavily in my personal determination of whether probable cause exists to indict for a homicide offense.

Also make sure your comments are free of bigotry against entire groups and religions.

If you can't do these things, please find another blog to comment on.